The hermitic relationship removes risk for the hermit buying remote land, I guess. Saves you being caught with somewhere that turns out to be a dud.
I think these similarities are mostly superficial. The key difference being up-front cost, sustenance (food/water/shelter), and expenses.
A hermit (as described/imagined here) on someone else's property would focus solely on gardening and basic maintenance while enjoying the luxury of not paying for landscapers, electricians, builders, plumbers, etc (and enjoy the time spent not doing all of those jobs themself).
Henry David Thoreau would somewhat comically fit in as a particular modern day silicon valley archetype.
“I told him, that as he worked so hard at bogging, he required thick boots and stout clothing, which yet were soon soiled and worn out, but I wore light shoes and thin clothing, which cost not half so much…and in an hour or two, without labor, but as a recreation, I could, if I wished, catch as many fish as I should want for two days, or earn enough money to support me a week. If he and his family would live simply, they might all go a-huckleberrying in the summer for their amusement. John heaved a sigh at this.”
Rich city person?
The hermits in these stories advertised in the paper. Do what they did, they were not acquaintances with the owners.
Can you type with long finger nails?
"Mr. Hamilton agreed to pay his hermit £700 provided he lived in the hermitage seven years. His only equipment during this period must be a Bible, optical glasses, a mat for his feet, a has sock for his pillow and an hourglass to tell the time.
In addition, he had to wear a camlet robe and never under any circumstances cut his hair, beard or nails, stray from the grounds or speak to anyone."